Business groups and their progressive allies are pushing Congress to accelerate more corporate migration during the lame-duck session after the election.
Bloomberg.com reported on October 11:
Senators have introduced a slew of NDAA amendments on other immigration issues. Most will be passed over, but some may make it into a bipartisan managers’ package, and a few may get a vote on the Senate floor. Advocates will try to include many of those same proposals, plus others, in an omnibus spending bill, though prospects remain uncertain.
Efforts include proposals to offer a path to citizenship to noncitizen service members and veterans, recapture unused family and employment-based visas from years past, and restore diversity visas lost to bureaucratic delays and Trump-era travel restrictions.
Overall, business groups prefer to keep reporters focused on young migrants instead of the replacement workers. For example, an advocacy group of West Coast investors — FWD.us — touted a full-page pro-amnesty advertisement in the Wall Street Journal :
The FWD.us investor group backs migration because it boosts their businesses with more wage-cutting workers , more consumers , and more renters . The founders include Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, and Mark and Priscilla Zuckerberg. It was created in 2013 to help pass the 2013 “Gang of Eight” cheap labor and amnesty bill.
The staff of the FWD.us group tries to hide the identity of the wealthy investors who founded and funded the group. But copies exist at other sites .
FWD.us has long fueled the DACA debate to minimize media coverage and public recognition of Fortune 500 migration.
The Wall Street Journal ad was sponsored by a spinoff of FWD.us, the Coalition for the American Dream. It declared :
The worker shortage will get worse for the United States if hundreds of thousands of critical workers [the ‘DACA” recipients of illegally-awarded work permits) are stripped of their legal ability to support themselves and their families. That is the situation we currently face if this ruling becomes final, and it is the reason for our request today.
Given that DACA applications and renewals were granted on a rolling basis, the end to this program means that an estimated 22,000 jobs would be lost every month for two years. That is roughly 1,000 job losses per business day at a time when the U.S. economy already faces significant workforce shortages.
When the last DACA recipient’s work permit expires, the U.S. will have lost more than 500,000 jobs, and the U.S. economy will lose as much as $11.7 billion annually – or roughly $1 billion monthly – in wages from previously employed DACA recipients. (To put this into perspective, in Texas alone, 400 healthcare workers and 300 teachers will be forced out of their jobs each month.)
“It is, first and foremost, a humanitarian issue, but the broken system is also harming manufacturers’ competitiveness,” said Jay Timmons, CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers.
“Our communities, businesses, and economy have all benefitted from the contributions of these young men and women,” claimed Matthew Shay, CEO of the National Retail Federation. “It is time to provide them with a pathway to lawful permanent residence and ultimately American citizenship.”
The business groups also paid for similar ads in the Dallas Morning News and the Charlotte Observer to pressure Sen. John Coryn (R-Tx) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).
Of course, any reduction in the number of illegal foreign workers is a boon to more than 100 million Americans who have lost wages and affordable housing because the establishment has pumped millions of cheap, submissive, and hard-working migrants into Americans’ workplaces.
Since January 2021, Biden has allowed roughly four million illegal migrants, visa workers, and legal immigrants into the United States, alongside many foreigners who take jobs after getting tourist visas. That mass inflow damaged Americans’ salaries by flooding the labor market and helped to spike inflation and housing prices.
The migrants are extracted from poor countries with the goal of diverting a larger share of the nation’s income toward investors and Wall Street.
The damage is exemplified by Julia Mallman, a single, childless, 42-year-old kindergarten teacher in Fairfax, Va. Her monthly rents jumped by 25 percent as Joe Biden’s migrants rented spaces in her apartment complex, she told the October 20 Washington Post :
“So many emotions when I saw that,” Mallman said. “I was furious. And disappointed. And demoralized.”
She got a post-pandemic gut punch that is hitting renters across the nation this year. After landlords largely suspended rent hikes and federal assistance came during shutdowns, renters are now paying a steep price for that brief clemency. Nationwide, rents are up 11.3 percent this year, according to the real-estate-research firm CoStar Group . In some parts, like in Mallman’s working-class complex, the penalty … is weighing in at 25 percent.
“Who can afford this?” she asked, showing me the contract she decided to sign after all, on the day it was due. “The prices are pretty much the same everywhere I look.”
The federal government’s Extraction Migration economy strategy is hidden from the public behind a screen of ineffective border defenses, pro-migration media coverage, official lies, and complex laws.
Even a New York Times writer recognized the scam in an October 20 op-ed:
The border, I think, is imperfect by design: Porous enough to ensure that some people will inevitably manage to get through, delivering a steady supply of cheap and under-the-table labor. Closed enough to prevent a glut of newcomers. Lenient at times because we are a land of immigrants, but punctuated with attention-grabbing crackdowns to dissuade too many people from trying their luck.
The GOP legislators in the House and Senate recognize their voters’ deep opposition to the wealth-shifting migration. So they are zig-zagging away from their donors’ demands before the election. NBC News reported on October 20:
A Republican aide said the “business community always underestimates how hard it is to get legislation through on this topic and tends to misread the political environment.”
Even Democrats doubt Republicans will OK the amnesty, NBC reported:
“From what I’m seeing and hearing, Republicans are not budging on this,” the Democratic aide said. “I’m glad these companies are doing this now, but they’re only as effective as their outreach.”
But the progressive groups keep pushing, amid much damage to Americans.
“It’s clear that the ball is in President Biden’s hands,” Greisa MartÃnez Rosas, the director of the donor-backed United We Dream group, told Politico.
“He needs to say that it’s his number one priority … He needs to say that clearly, publicly and many times. I think that he can use his bipartisan experience to bring Republicans to the negotiating table,” she told Politico.
VIDEO
WHAT HAPPENED TO CALIFORNIA? A DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED SANCTUARY LA RAZA/UNIDOus WELFARE STATE AND COLONY OF MEXICO
How Zuckerberg Used a Tax-Exempt Foundation to Help Biden Fix the 2020 Election And got away with it.
David Horowitz and John Perazzo
[Order David Horowitz's new book: The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America .]
Everybody to the right of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez knows that the root cause of the crisis facing America — the most serious since the Civil War — is lawlessness. And everybody not under the spell of the Democrat spin machine understands that the lawlessness begins at the top, with government and the many agencies of the executive branch who are tasked by our Constitution with enforcing the law. Whether by failing to enforce our immigration statutes, or failing to prosecute criminals in our streets, or violating our election procedures to favor one party, Democrat administrations in our nation’s capital and our major cities have brazenly supported criminal behavior carried out by Black Lives Matter rioters, common street thugs, and anti-Supreme Court agitators seeking to extort decisions by fear. The effect has been to systematically undermine the rule of law, stoke the fires of anarchy, and sow chaos in our institutions.
This trend has been evident since the revival of the radical left on the eve of the 9/11 attacks and its creation of Sanctuary Cities designed to flout the law and prevent the enforcement of the PATRIOT Act. It escalated with Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional — and self-acknowledged — violation of America’s immigration laws. And it spread to the revenue authority of the I.R.S. , which systematically rejected the applications for tax-exempt status of conservative organizations, until the scandal grew so large that it forced the resignation of the tax commissioner Lois Lerner. But while one commissioner is gone, the illegal partisan practices of the I.R.S. have continued to grow under her latest successor, Charles Rettig, playing a key role in skewing the results of the last presidential election.
Tax-exempt foundations are barred from contributing their resources to election campaigns. There is no ambiguity in the law concerning this prohibition:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.
The existence of such a regulation is meaningless, however, if it is not enforced. Consequently, this ban on campaign activities by “charitable” organizations didn’t daunt Facebook billionaire and Democrat Party patron Mark Zuckerberg and his wife when they plotted a massive campaign to swing the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrat, Joe Biden. The Facebook couple donated $419.5 million to two leftwing tax-exempt foundations with the intention of tipping the result to Biden by launching “get-out-the-vote” campaigns focused on Democrat precincts in battleground states.
A rarely mentioned fact about the 2020 election is that Biden eked out a victory by perhaps the narrowest margin in history — .027% of the 159 million votes cast. This was a margin easily created by a strategic influx of campaign cash coupled with orders to spend the money on massive numbers of paper ballots, which could be harvested from “drop boxes,” which, as Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary 2000 Mules shows, were repeatedly stuffed by Democrat operatives in the middle of the night.
All these millions of Zuckerberg dollars, underwritten by American taxpayers, drew no attention from I.R.S. Commissioner Charles Rettig or the I.R.S. investigating teams whose responsibility it was to see that taxpayer supported operations like the Zuckerberg “charities” were not intervening in American election campaigns with the idea of shaping their outcomes.
In 2020, the Zuckerbergs donated $69.5 million to the tax-exempt Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), whose founder was formerly a director of the leftwing People For the American Way , and $350 million to the “Safe Elections” Project of the tax-exempt Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). The title “Safe Elections” refers to the cover for Zuckerberg’s fraudulent operation, which he presented as an effort to protect voters from COVID-19. The three founders of CTCL were former co-workers at the Democrat-aligning New Organizing Institute . The conduit Zuckerberg used to funnel his $419.5 million to CEIR and CTCL was yet another tax-exempt nonprofit, the California-based Silicon Valley Community Foundation . The Silicon Valley Community Foundation supports get-out-the-vote campaigns for the Democratic Party.
On receiving Zuckerberg’s funds, CEIR and CTCL distributed the money, in the form of “COVID-19 response” grants of varying amounts, to election administrators in some 2,500 municipalities in 49 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. The alleged purpose of these grants, according to CTCL, was to help create conditions where Americans could vote as safely as possible in the midst of the deadly coronavirus pandemic. This could have been accomplished by renting football stadiums and other sports arenas that would provide enough space for “social distancing” and would have been a worthy tax-exempt objective, if it had been the actual purpose of the project. But it wasn’t.
Neither CEIT nor CTCL had ever before experienced anything even remotely resembling the size of the cash influx they received from Zuckerberg for the 2020 election cycle. For example, over the course of the entire prior history of CTCL - a small, unremarkable organization founded in 2012 - its yearly revenues from contributions and grants had never once exceeded $2.84 million . That high-water mark represented a mere eight-tenths-of-one-percent of the astronomical sum donated by Zuckerberg in 2020.
Despite their self-professed “ non-partisanship ,” CEIR and CTCL allocated their Zuckerberg-provided funds in a highly partisan manner, which conformed to the election strategies followed by Democrat operatives across the country to make election fraud easier. The goal of Zuckerberg and the two organizations was to pump massive sums of money into voter-mobilization initiatives in specific cities and counties that had traditionally voted for Democrats, so as to maximize the likelihood that large numbers of Democrat voters in those places would cast ballots in the 2020 elections. Meanwhile, places that traditionally had voted Republican received far less money — or in some cases no money at all. The CEIR and CTCL campaigns were highly targeted efforts to boost voter turnout in Democrat districts to a degree that would be substantial enough to overcome whatever level of voter turnout Republican districts in the same states might experience.
The CEIR/CTCL grants were not awarded as gifts that the recipient cities and counties could use in whatever way they saw fit. The Zuckerberg organizations extended formal invitations to the targeted communities encouraging them to apply for the Zuckerberg funds, which in turn would be doled out with many strings attached. Strict conditions were laid down as to how the recipient jurisdictions could use the money and administer their respective elections. “It was a pay-to-play scheme , where in exchange for taking this money, the CTCL gets to tell them how to run the election,” observed Thomas More Society attorney Erick Kaardal.
Using COVID-19 fears as an excuse, CTCL required that its grant money be used to: (a) suspend existing election laws in order to promote universal mail-in voting, a practice singled out by the bi-partisan Carter-Baker Commission as particularly vulnerable to fraud and corruption; (b) eliminate or weaken signature-matching requirements and ballot-receipt deadlines for mail-in votes; (c) expand opportunities for “ ballot curing ” (i.e., “fixing” wrongly cast ballots to remove their disqualification); (d) cover the very considerable expenses associated with massive bulk mailings and “community outreach” programs administered by private activists; (e) enable the proliferation of unmonitored ballot drop boxes which would make it impossible to ensure a transparent and secure chain-of-custody trail for all ballots; (f) create unprecedented opportunities for illegal ballot harvesting ; and (h) greatly increase funding for the hiring of temporary poll workers, which, as The Federalist points out, “supported the infiltration of election offices by paid Democratic Party activists, coordinated through a complex web of left-leaning non-profit organizations, social media platforms, and social media election influencers.” In other words, the Zuckerberg/CTCL funds were used to conduct and support multiple practices that are widely recognized as practices that make election fraud possible.
Zuckerberg’s donations to CEIR were used to promote objectives similar to the CTCL priorities cited above. But because CTCL received so much more money from the Facebook founder than did CEIR, the 2020 elections were impacted much more powerfully by CTCL. Zuckerberg’s “coordinated assault on in-person voting generally favored Democrat Party voters who preferred to vote in advance, while placing Republicans, who preferred to vote in person, at a disadvantage,” according to former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline in his December 2020 report titled The Legitimacy and Effect of Private Funding in Federal and State Electoral Processes , published by the Thomas More Society's Amistad Project. That assault helped to create “a two-tier election system favoring one demographic while disadvantaging another demographic.” Kline’s report was also critical of CTCL for generally viewing state election-integrity laws as nothing more than “obstacles and nuisances to be ignored or circumvented.”
Additional ways in which CTCL grants were used in various states and cities across America:
· CTCL encouraged elections departments in multiple states to use its grant money for the purchase of vehicles to transport “voter navigators” to the places where their services were needed — services like: (a) registering voters; (b) helping people apply for absentee ballots; (c) helping voters, potentially at their front doors, to fill out their ballots; (d) witnessing absentee ballot signatures; and (e) “ curing ” absentee ballots that had been filled out incorrectly.
· CTCL grants in Georgia were used to: (a) expand curbside voting and conduct “voter outreach” campaigns designed to “promote absentee voting and encourage higher percentages of our electors to vote absentee”; (b) dispatch CTCL agents to train poll workers; and (c) fund “Happy Faces,” a temporary staffing agency affiliated with the Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams , to count the votes on election night in Fulton County.
· CTCL grants to Philadelphia were used to pay election judges and various other election officials, and to increase the number of polling locations, mobile ballot-pickup units, and ballot drop boxes in the city.
· CTCL grants helped Delaware County, Pennsylvania — a heavily Democratic area — put one drop box in place for every 4,000 voters and every four square miles of land. By contrast, in the 59 Pennsylvania counties that Trump had won in the 2016 election, there would now be just one drop box for every 72,000 voters and every 1,100 square miles of land. “Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote,” Phill Kline wrote in the Amistad Project report. “This two-tiered election system allowed voters in Democrat strongholds to stroll down the street to vote while voters in Republican strongholds had to go on the equivalent of a ‘Where’s Waldo’ hunt. These irregularities existed wherever Zuckerberg’s money was granted to local election officials.”
· CTCL gave $443,000 to Lansing, Michigan, whose elections department used that money to purchase additional absentee-ballot drop boxes and to mail absentee-ballot applications to every registered voter .
· Election officials in Lorain County, Ohio used CTCL funds to pay an $8,100 Verizon phone bill and to purchase a $24,000 van that was used to transport equipment between a warehouse and the elections department.
· The Boone County, Missouri elections department used $3,000 of CTCL’s COVID grant to produce a rap video and purchase radio spots that, according to County Clerk Brianna Lennon, would “appeal to younger, first-time voters” — a demographic strongly inclined to support Democrat candidates.
· When CTCL gave $100,000 to Racine, Wisconsin in May 2020, the organization directed Racine’s mayor to recruit the leaders of four additional cities — Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee — to collaboratively draft a grant request for CTCL funds as well. On June 15, those four cities together submitted a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” to CTCL and were quickly approved to receive $6.3 million to put their plan into action. As Amistad Project director Phill Kline points out, CTCL “retained the right, in the grant document, to, in its sole discretion, order all funds returned if the grantee cities did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates. Effectively, CTCL managed the election in these five cities.”
All told, CTCL in 2020 made 26 separate grants of $1 million or more to cities and counties in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Twenty-five of those grants, totaling a combined $85.5 million, went to places that Joe Biden ultimately won in the 2020 presidential election. The vast majority of CTCL’s money also went to places that had voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016. By contrast, the lone Trump-supporting CTCL grant recipient of $1 million or more in 2020 — Brown County, Wisconsin — was given just $1.1 million.
Below are some additional examples of the enormous imbalance in CTCL’s grants to Democrat areas vs. Republican areas:
· In Texas , counties that Biden won in 2020 received CTCL grants that amounted to $3.22 per capita, whereas counties that Trump won received just 55 cents per capita..
· CTCL gave $2.8 million to the heavily Democratic Webb County, Texas, thereby helping total registrations in that jurisdiction increase by approximately 10,000 over the corresponding figure from 2016 — and helping Biden beat Trump by a two-to-one margin.
· In Virginia , grants to pro-Biden counties accounted for over 90% of all CTCL grants in that state — far more than the corresponding 9.6% that was given to Trump-supporting counties.
· CTCL gave $1.4 million to the Democrat stronghold of Fairfax County, Virginia, helping to increase Democrat voter turnout there by 65,458 above the 2016 figure. By contrast, Republican turnout in Fairfax County increased by only 10,564 above the 2016 figure.
· In Arizona , a state with 15 counties, fully 83.6% of all known CTCL grants were poured into just 3 counties that Biden won in 2020.
· The total dollar amount of CTCL grants to pro-Biden counties in Arizona was 5.8 times greater than the dollar amount given to pro-Trump counties in that state.
· In Pennsylvania , grants to counties that Biden won in 2020 received $3.11 per capita, vs. just 57 cents per capita to counties that Trump won. More specifically, CTCL grants to rural, Republican-leaning Pennsylvania counties like Mercer and Luzerne amounted to an average of about 75 cents per registered voter, while Democrat-majority areas like Delaware and Chester Counties received $5.17 and $6.73 per registered voter, respectively.
· CTCL gave $20.8 million in grants to 10 (of the 13) Pennsylvania counties that Biden won in 2020. Those 10 CTCL-funded counties provided Biden with nearly 73% of all the votes that he received statewide. By contrast, CTCL awarded grants to 12 (of the 54) Pennsylvania counties won by Trump, and those dozen grants totaled a combined $1.73 million. In other words, the combined value of CTCL’s grants to pro-Biden counties in Pennsylvania was 12 times greater than the value of its grants to pro-Trump counties.
· CTCL gave $42.4 million in grants to 17 (of the 31) Georgia counties won by Biden — a figure amounting to more than 94% of all CTCL funding in that state. Those 17 CTCL-funded counties provided Biden with almost 73% of all the votes that he captured statewide. By contrast, a mere $2.6 million — less than 6% of all CTCL grants distributed across Georgia — were allotted to 26 (of the 128) counties won by Trump. Put another way, CTCL’s grants to pro-Biden counties were 16.3 times greater than its grants to pro-Trump counties.
· In Wisconsin , CTCL grants to 20 separate pro-Biden counties amounted to more than 90% of all of the organization’s grants in that state.
· CTCL awarded eleven massive grants in Michigan, ten of which went to cities that Hillary Clinton had won in the 2016 presidential election. The total number of dollars given to those Democrat strongholds was 14.7 times greater than the corresponding amount given to the lone Republican jurisdiction.
· The Wisconsin legislature gave the heavily Democratic city of Green Bay approximately $7 per voter to manage its 2020 elections, vs. just $4 per voter to the state’s Republican rural counties. Then, after CTCL got through allocating Zuckerberg’s money in Wisconsin, the Green Bay figure ballooned to an astronomical $47 per voter, while the figure for most of the state’s rural areas remained steady at just $4 per voter .
Similar funding disparities — favoring Democrat areas over Republican areas — occurred in and near Democrat citadels such as Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Flint, Dallas, and Houston.
The Zuckerberg grants dwarfed the amount of election-related money normally spent by the various Democrat cities that were recipients of those grants. As J. Christian Adams reported in PJ Media , for instance:
“Philadelphia’s election office budget was normally $9.8 million. The CLTC gave Philadelphia $10 million, more than doubling the city budget.”
“Those millions were used to hire local activists as city employees to drive around and collect ballots. The millions bought new printers and scanners to accommodate mail ballots. Philadelphia established brand new satellite election offices across the most Biden-friendly neighborhoods in the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The millions bought scores of convenient drop boxes across the same neighborhoods where mail ballots could be conveniently dropped. Even though laws limited third parties from collecting and dropping off multiple ballots, people were photographed dropping off bundles of ballots at the boxes.
“If voters couldn’t muster the initiative to travel a few blocks to the drop-off boxes or new satellite offices, the city went to them to collect their ballot.
“CLTC dollars flowed through Philadelphia election officials to the pricey public relations firm Aloysius Butler & Clark. They designed billboards, posters, bus advertisements, and print ads. Radio advertisements and street marketing all added to the blitz.… “The hundreds of millions poured into urban election offices by the CTLC and affiliated charities also explains how Trump dramatically increased his share of the black and Hispanic vote and still lost… Even if Trump increased his share of the black and Hispanic vote, the opening of the urban turnout floodgates through private donations to government election offices easily swamped Trump statewide in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan.
“It doesn’t matter if Trump has 15 percent of the black vote in Detroit if turnout there soared by 92,891 Detroit votes, which it did. It doesn’t matter if Trump has even 20 percent of the black vote in Atlanta if turnout in DeKalb soared by 54,550 votes, which it did.
“This also explains how the GOP was so successful everywhere… except at the top of the ticket. A flood of blue votes gushing out of deep blue urban areas has a statewide effect only for statewide candidates. It doesn’t affect legislative races outside of the cities.”
“The amount of additional money these groups [CTCL and CEIR] poured into elections offices in Democrat-voting areas was truly staggering,” said the New York Post in October 2021. “To put it in perspective, federal and state matching funds for COVID-19-related election expenses in 2020 totaled $479.5 million. The CTCL and CEIR money totaled $419.5 million. These two private nonprofits were responsible for an 85 percent increase in total additional election funding — and that largesse was concentrated in a relatively small number of heavily Democratic municipalities.”
Summing up, The Federalist noted that: “The practical effect of these massive, privately manipulated election-office funding disparities was to create a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias that systematically favored Democratic voters over Republican voters. The massive influx of funds essentially created a high-powered, concierge-like get-out-the-vote effort for Biden that took place inside the election system, rather than attempting to influence it from the outside.”
In addition to issuing the aforementioned grants, CTCL collaborated with Facebook to produce a guide and webinar that taught election officials how to engage and assist voters more effectively. This voter-assistance campaign targeted low-income and nonwhite minorities who typically lean Democrat but shun election participation.
By no means was Facebook the only ally with which CTCL collaborated. As Real Clear Investigations explains, a “CTCL partner ” nonprofit known as the Center for Civic Design “helped design absentee ballot forms and instructions, crafted voter registration letters for felons, and tested automatic voter registration systems in several states, working alongside progressive activist groups in Michigan and directly with elections offices in Georgia and Utah.” “Still other groups with a progressive leaning, including the [tax-exempt nonprofit] Main Street Alliance, The Elections Group, and the [tax-exempt nonprofit] National Vote at Home Institute, provided support for some elections offices,” added RCI . In other words, leftwing activists were infused directly into the elections offices of various cities and towns.
The effects that the funding patterns of CEIR/CTCL had on the composition of the electorates in their targeted recipient areas were noteworthy. In Georgia, for instance, counties that received money from Zuckerberg and CEIR/CTCL in 2020 were, on average, 2.3 points more Democratic than they had been in 2016. Meanwhile, the political mix of non-funded counties was essentially the same as it had been four years earlier.
Such realities are particularly significant in light of the fact that Biden’s margin of victory in the 2020 presidential race was razor-thin. The final tally in the Electoral College (EC) was 306 EC votes for Biden, to 232 EC votes for Trump, with 270 being the number required to win the presidency. The popular vote margins by which Biden allegedly won the three most hotly contested battleground states were as follows: Arizona: 10,457 (EC votes: 11); Georgia: 11,779 (EC votes: 16); Wisconsin: 20,682 (EC votes: 10). The presidential election of 2020 was decided by a mere 42,918 out of the 159 million votes that were cast overall, or 0.027 percent of all the votes that were cast.
Collectively, Trump lost the states of Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by just 42,918 votes. If he had won these 3 states, he would have gained their 37 combined EC votes, bringing his total up to 269. Biden, conversely, would have lost 37 EC votes, bringing his total down to 269 as well. In the event of a 269-269 tie, the election would have been decided by the House of Representatives. Even though the Democrats held a majority in terms of total House members, the Republicans held a majority of seats in 26 separate states while the Democrats held a majority of seats in 23 separate states, and 1 state had an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Each state delegation would have been permitted to cast 1 vote for president, meaning that Trump would have won the election in this scenario.
The money donated by CTCL and CEIR bore no resemblance to traditional campaign finance or lobbying. Rather, it enabled left-wing activists to infiltrate city and county elections offices, and using those offices as vehicles for particular administrative practices, voting methods, and outreach campaigns targeting cities and counties with high concentrations of Democratic voters. As Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability, told Fox News in June 2021: “The Zuckerberg funding is an unprecedented example of using government employees and government resources to put your finger on the scale, to affect the election outcome. It would be like giving private money to police departments to have officers do more stop-and-frisk in certain neighborhoods compared to other neighborhoods. It would be like giving money to the tax department to do increased audits in certain zip codes or neighborhoods versus other neighborhoods.”
Bragdon also noted that although the stated justification for the CEIR/CTCL grants was voter and election-official safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, some counties spent little or no money at all on things like personal protective equipment [PPE] that could have made in-person voting safer for everyone. Fulton, Cobb and Dekalb Counties, for instance, spent on average only 1.3% of the Zuckerberg-funded Georgia grants on PPE, while most of the money was used to promote mail-in voting statewide. “This had nothing to do with COVID and had everything to do with using government resources and government employees to play politics,” said Bragdon.
In a more timid vein, a group of 14 congressional Republicans sent a letter to CTCL’s executive director on June 21, 2021 that said: “Designated as ‘COVID-19 response grants,’ the hundreds of millions in CTCL grant money were marketed as funds available to election officials to ‘safely serve every voter’ during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the current data available shows that less than one percent of funds were spent on personal protective equipment. If true, the American public deserves to know how the other 99 percent of these grants were spent.” “This private funding has never been done before,” said Hayden Dublois, a researcher at the Foundation of Government Accountability. “We hear about dark money and corporations buying ads, but never have we seen hundreds of millions of private dollars going into the conducting of elections. And states didn’t have any laws on the books to stop it.” But the I.R.S. did, and did nothing.
In the 2020 Amistad Project report, Phill Kline wrote that in 2020 there had been “an unprecedented and coordinated public-private partnership to improperly influence” the election in swing states, a partnership that “effectively placed government’s thumb on the scale to help these private interests achieve their objectives and to benefit the candidates of one political party.” Zuckerberg and his wife were central players on the “private” side of that equation.
Moreover, Zuckerberg continued to use his riches to influence political elections in a major way even after the 2020 presidential race was over. CTCL gave 14.5 million of the Facebook founder’s dollars to select Georgia counties during the open-voting period for the crucial January 2021 runoff elections in Georgia where radical Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff won a pair of U.S. Senate seats that gave their party a majority in the Senate. More than 60% of CTCL’s grants in Georgia were earmarked for Fulton and Dekalb Counties, both of which are heavily Democratic.
Conclusion
In sum, while the I.R.S. authorities turned a blind eye towards his illegal activities Mark Zuckerberg used his enormous wealth to help fix the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden — and the January 2021 Senate runoff races for Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, all the while reducing his own tax bill. Zuckerberg did this on the pretext that he was simply seeking to help ordinary Americans find a way to participate safely in the electoral process during the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Zuckerberg’s goal was to massively increase voter turnout in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions by maximizing fraud-breeding practices like ballot harvesting, the use of unmonitored ballot drop boxes, and mail-in voting without strict signature-matching requirements. To achieve his political ends, Zuckerberg poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of a pair of politically partisan, tax-exempt nonprofit organizations that were more than willing to do his dirty work and secure the presidency for a doddering contempt-for-the-law-and-the-truth Alzheimer’s case.
None of these travesties could have taken place without the seditious collusion of I.R.S. Commissioner Charles Rettig and his 63,000 agents whose duty is to protect the integrity of our tax laws — and, as it turns out, our elections.
David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of the newly published book, The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement Is Destroying America .
John Perazzo is the editor of DiscoverTheNetworks.org —an encyclopedic guide to the political Left and a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of Black Lives Matter: Marxist Hate Dressed Up As Racial Justice .
Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
FACEBOOK MAY BE LAYING OFF BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN ZUCK EVER PLANS TO HIRE AMERICAN TECH WORKERS, NOT WHEN BOATLOADS OF INDIAN TECH WORKERS AND THEIR EXTENDED FAMILIES ARE ON THE WAY AND WILL WORK ‘CHEAP’.
Zuck Troubles: Internal Facebook Memos Outline Hiring Freeze, ‘Slower’ Revenue Growth LUCAS NOLAN
6 May 2022 0
Recently leaked internal Facebook memos have revealed that the company is implementing a hiring freeze due to its failure to hit revenue targets. The Masters of the Universe continue to struggle with Apple’s privacy changes, which have damaged Mark Zuckerberg’s ability to suck up the personal data of users from their iPhones.
Business Insider reports that Facebook is enacting a massive hiring freeze and reducing hiring targets in a strategy that will impact “almost every team across the company.” This information comes from leaked internal memos sent to employees by executives this week.
This is a surprising decision from Facebook which has been overhauling its company in recent years, rebranding as Meta and vowing to focus on building “the Metaverse.” The company plans to build a digital reality and hardware to seamlessly access it, but the business pivot is reportedly becoming costly. Combined with an almost 40 percent decline in stock value this year, company CFO David Wehner announced that the firm is “reprioritizing.”
Breitbart News previously reported that according to internal reports, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become increasingly obsessed with the idea of a digital metaverse, to the point where many of his employees are becoming frustrated and annoyed with the concept. According to a former director-level employee who recently left the company, it’s “the only thing Mark wants to talk about.”
Now, due to “slower revenue growth than anticipated,” Facebook is implementing a company-wide hiring freeze and doesn’t intend to meet hiring goals set at the start of the year. According to the memo, the company’s problems are due to the Apple privacy changes , the war in Ukraine, and the “general macroeconomic environment.”
The memo from company CFO David Wehner reads in part:
While we’re still going through our reprioritization, we know this will have an effect on hiring for the rest of the year. We came into 2022 with really aggressive growth targets and have hired at an incredible pace this year so far — we hired more engineers in Q1 than all of 2021. We’ve brought thousands of talented people into the company that are helping us work towards our ambitious goals and 2022 priorities. However, as we look towards the second half, we’re going to adjust those targets in a couple of ways:
1. Reducing our hiring targets for 2022. This means hiring fewer people than we initially forecast. We’re still working out what this means for each org, but this will affect almost every team in the company. We’re entering into the H2 planning cycle, and this will be an opportunity to reprioritize work to make sure we’re all focused on the most important things and the top priorities for the company. Your org leaders will follow up with more information over the coming days and weeks, but today we’re announcing some changes on the Engineering side — look out for a post in Engineering FYI for details.
2. Reviewing headcount allocation to make sure it’s aligned to our top company priorities given our modified hiring targets. This will help us resource the projects that we’re prioritizing for the rest of the year. You’ll learn more about this from your functional and org leads over the next couple of weeks.
Read more at Business Insider here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com
Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania.
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
Zuckerberg’s FWD.us Claims No Amnesty Ensures Midterm Defeat for Democrats NEIL MUNRO
The Facebook-funded FWD.us investor advocacy group is touting the claim that Democrat turnout will drop in 2022 if the party cannot pass an amnesty through Congress.
But that claim is toothless, in large part because recent polls show that many Americans of Latino ancestry are increasingly voting for the GOP, precisely because GOP leaders oppose the amnesty-amplified wave of cheap labor into their communities.
The claim is being made by pro-migration groups, including the leaders of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) which denounced the Senate’s parliamentarian’s decision to exclude the parole amnesty for 6.5 million illegals from the draft Build Back Better spending plan.
NDLON declared Thursday night:
Democrats’ excuses for their failure, for their incompetence, and for their insincerity will be the ammunition used by xenophobes in the Republican Party to retake control of the federal government in upcoming elections. Inaction on immigration legalization risks further propelling Trumpism in every possible way … No more excuses. Where there is a will, there is a way.
The NDLON group represents illegal migrants, most of whom work for very low wages, and none of whom can vote in U.S. elections.
Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) is making the same claim, according to Bloomberg, which reported that he “warned that Democrats would face wrath from voters in the 2022 elections if they don’t secure a citizenship path”
But the NDLON claim is being echoed by the politically powerful investor class, who use imported workers, consumers, and renters to spike the value of their Wall Street investments.
Todd Schulte is the president of the FWD.us advocacy group for investors, which gets about $30 million a year from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to push for more migration. On Thursday night, he tweeted:
Schulte’s deputy also pushed a hard line:
Unsurprisingly, FWD.us has a hidden agenda in the amnesty debate.
The establishment media extensively cover the proposed parole amnesty for 6.5 million illegal migrants. But the media largely ignores two other proposed changes to immigration laws that would deliver huge benefits to West Coast investors who created the FWD.us advocacy group in 2013.
For example, the BBB legislation would allow the White House to provide green cards to millions of favored migrants, including perhaps three million “chain migrants” selected by recent immigrants. This open-doors policy would provide investors with millions of new profit-generating consumers, renters, and workers.
The BBB legislation would also allow President Joe Biden’s pro-migration deputies to sell green cards to at least one million migrants who have taken many of the Fortune 500 jobs sought by skilled U.S. college graduates. This change would allow Fortune 500 companies to hire many more foreign graduates with dangled offers of fast-track green cards. These workers are usually imported via the visa worker programs, such as the H-1B and Optional Practical Training program.
But those two benefits for the Fortune 500 investors may be dropped if the Democrat senators cannot also get their amnesty for illegal migrants.
On Friday, an advocacy group for corporate-funded immigration lawyers urged Congress to keep pushing the green card giveaway, even after the amnesty was nixed:
“The corporate guys are riding on perceived sympathy for the illegal alien population in order to get their immigration giveaways,” said Robert Law, the director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. He continued:
The Hispanic population knows immigration is a pocketbook issue for them as well, and mass illegal immigration — plus legal immigration — hurts the economic opportunities of Hispanic Americans or the black community, or any people who typically are competing at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
The Senate’s debate referee has not issued any judgments on the two green card proposals.
Zuckerberg’s FWD.us network of coastal investors stands to gain from more cheap labor , government-aided consumers , and urban renters . The network has funded many astroturf campaigns , urged Democrats to not talk about the economic impact of migration, and manipulated coverage by the TV networks and the print media .
FWD.us’also spotlights many family dramas amid the inflow of border migrants. This focus helps keep reporters from recognizing the huge pocketbook impact of the establishment’s economic policy of mass migration. The resulting family-drama coverage also keeps many young progressives from noticing that the extraction migration policy drives up their rents and cuts their salaries.
The breadth of investors who founded and funded FWD.us was hidden from casual visitors to the group’s website sometime in the last few months. But copies exist at other sites .
Biden ’ s Chief of Staff Worked on Behalf of Big Tech for Endless H-1B Visas
JOHN BINDER
Democrat Joe Biden has chosen Ronald Klain
to be his chief of staff should he enter the
White House in January. Klain worked on
behalf of Silicon Valley executives and their
interests, which include providing tech
corporations with an endless supply of H-1B
foreign visa workers and more free trade.
Klain, who was made Biden’s incoming chief of staff this week , served on the executive council of TechNet — a firm that promotes the interests of Silicon Valley’s tech corporations in Washington, D.C. Klain served on the council alongside executives from the Oracle Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Google, Visa, Apple, and Microsoft.
TechNet, most recently, joined a lawsuit against President Trump’s reforms to the H-1B visa program that sought to prioritize unemployed Americans for jobs rather than allowing businesses to continue importing foreign workers.
TechNet is one of the groups that has filed an amicus brief to oppose the new regulations on H-1B visas. https://t.co/ofY4GJ2sVR
— U.S. Tech Workers (@USTechWorkers) November 12, 2020
Trump’s seeking to force businesses to hire Americans over importing foreign visa workers is an affront to Silicon Valley’s tech corporations, those represented by TechNet, who advocate for an endless flow of H-1B foreign visa workers.
There are about 650,000 H-1B visa workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans are often laid off and forced to train their foreign replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News. More than 85,000 Americans annually potentially lose their jobs to foreign labor through the H-1B visa program.
Analysis conducted in 2018 discovered that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley, California, are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers. Up to 99 percent of H-1B visa workers imported by the top eight outsourcing firms are from India.
TechNet’s listed immigration goals include allowing corporations to dictate the annual level of legal immigration to the United States and the elimination of per-country caps that would effectively let India and China monopolize the U.S. green card system.
The group’s goals on trade are in direct opposition to President Trump’s economic nationalist agenda that has imposed tariffs on foreign imports from China, Canada, Europe, and other parts of the globe.
TechNet’s trade goals include reducing “tariff and non-tariff barriers to information, communications, and advanced energy technology products, services, and investments” as well as “protections for the free flow of data across borders…”
While Biden has vowed to flood the U.S. labor market with more foreign workers to compete against Americans for jobs, he has shied away from questions on whether he will eliminate tariffs on foreign imports that were imposed by Trump. Such elimination of tariffs would be a boon to multinational corporations that offshore their production and jobs overseas only to import their products back into the U.S. market, often with no penalties for doing so.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse. By Steve Baldwin American Spectator What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million (BLOG: THE NUMBER IS CLOSER TO 15 MILLION ILLE GALS ). The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion (DATED: NOW ABOUT $35 BILLION YEARLY AND THAT IS ON THE STATE LEVEL ONLY. COUNTIES PAY OUT MORE) on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs.
Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household. Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg , claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming. Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.
No comments:
Post a Comment